Estimating disease likelihood: a case of rubbery figures

In diagnosis and prognosis, we should avoid intuitive “guesstimates” and seek a validated numerical aid

Correspondence:

1. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 1109-1117.
2. Balla JI. The use of critical cues and prior probability in decision-making. Methods Inf Med 1982; 21: 9-14.
3. Dolan JG, Bordley DR, Mushlin AI. An evaluation of clinicians’ subjective prior probability estimates. Med Decis Making 1986; 6: 216-223.
4. Peeters A, Ting J, Nelson MR, McNeil JJ. Coronary heart disease risk prediction by general practitioners in Victoria [letter]. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 252. <MJA full text>
5. Ayanian J, Berwick D. Do physicians have a bias toward action? Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 154-158.
6. Attia J, Balakrishnan RN, Sibbritt D, et al. Generating pre-test probabilities: a neglected area in clinical decision making. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 449-454. <MJA full text>
7. Henrikson CA, Howell EE, Bush DE, et al. Chest pain relief by nitroglycerin does not predict active coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139: 979-986.
8. Ingui BJ, Rogers MA. Searching for clinical prediction rules in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001; 8: 391-397.
9. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997; 277: 488-494.
10. McDonald CJ. Medical heuristics: the silent adjudicators of clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 56-62.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.